in the company of reality

I had the TV on while cooking, probably either The Simpsons or Seinfeld, and one of the commercials was for an upcoming or possibly just-past reality show where a guy revealed to some woman that he was not in fact whatever she thought he was--a millionaire, landed gentry, a software designer--and that he and the TV producers had been deceiving her for however long they had been deceiving her. Sound familiar? It reminded me exactly of the revelation in In the Company of Men (probably the only time I've heard actual gasps from a movie audience). I don't know if this means reality show audiences would think the In the Company of Men men are actually just OK Joes since that's more or less the premise they've learned to love as entertainment. While I'd like to say that it exposes the gossipy cruelty of reality shows as the reason I don't watch them, the reason is actually much simpler: they're boring. Oh, perhaps if I took some faux-Cagean approach and sat down with hours of Survivor I'd learn to move past that boredom but then again why bother? Maybe if there were verite-styled shows following, say, a rancher or a Congressional aide or a philosophy professor or an airline pilot for a few weeks then I'd watch. Maybe when serious narrowcasting becomes a reality.....

Overheard at the Greek restaurant

"There's no American letter for it."

Self Deception

Joe Quesada recently told Newsarama: "Speaking of which, we haven't even talked bout how Marvel is the only publisher really creating a significant amount of material to reach the kid's market right now and in a significant way. I'm very surprised that this hasn't been more openly discussed across the boards or within the net news community. I mean we could talk Avengers and Spidey all day, but Marvel Age is really the most important news of the year."



The very day I read this I also heard a father ask the clerk at a comics store if a Marvel Age title was appropriate for his young son. Obviously the Marvel Age series--like much of Marvel's product in general--isn't well marketed. Any of the DC kid-friendly superhero titles are immediately recognizable as such by their cartoon design.



Even worse is that Marvel Age shows Marvel at its most cynical. DC at least comes up with new stories for its kids books but Marvel can't do anything but recycle its past in things like the increasingly superfluous Ultimate line and now the almost completely mindless Marvel Age. (Though this may be a snap judgement since I've only read a few M.A. issues and thumbed through some at the store. Still, the press releases show Marvel bizarrely proud of not doing anything remotely original with M.A.)



But Quesada's statement is just ridiculous (actually "a lie" might be more appropriate) when you consider that DC for years has published clear-cut kids books, usually Cartoon Network tie-ins but the ones I've read have all been quite respectable. Or is it just that like so many fanboys Quesada thinks comics begin and end with superheroes? When Wizard recently ran a Marvel vs. DC story it completely left out this aspect. So who has consistently published children's comics? That's DC. Which one publishes crime, fantasy and horror titles? DC. Which one constantly experiments with non-superhero titles? DC. Which one publishes manga? DC (though they're admittedly playing catch-up but when Marvel decided to do manga they merely stuck superheroes into a manga style; DC is doing the real thing). Which one is publishing actual British and European comics? DC again.



The point is that Marvel is so firmly tied to superheroes that it's starting to look more and more anachronistic. At the same moment that they're putting their characters back into costume and promoting cross-book tie-ins, the rest of the comics world increasingly moves beyond superheroes. If Tomine or Ware ever wanted to work for the Big Two (though since Ware published Jimmy Corrigan through one of the largest publishers in the world he might not be interested) it's almost certain that Marvel would only have them doing guys in tights but DC could at least offer the possibility of doing something else.

RIP Derrida

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/09/obit.derrida.reut/index.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida



http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/



http://www.popcultures.com/theorists/derrida.html



I highly recommend the documentary Derrida: http://www.derridathemovie.com/

some links

William Boyd on the short story



David Thomson on Rivette



Oklahoma messes up travel brochure



Anthony Grafton on campus fiction



not surprised about Americans who think The Da Vinci Code has any substance



Douglas Wolk on Fantagraphics' Top Ten



my list of October DVD releases



Senses of Cinema (no particular article, just more people should know about this site)

A Nation of Grad Students?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/09/19/improving_ourselves_to_death?pg=full

Yep, you've heard it mostly before but this is a decently amusing piece about how the long-lived American mania for self-improvement [insert Tocqueville quote here] is faring in the age of DVDs and trade paperbacks.

A few remarks:

1. Shouldn't it be "Zeno"? A web search shows significantly more hits including listings in philosophical dictionaries.

2. I read that Walkman piece too. It was by continual nay-sayer Norman Lebrecht and made some sense but, er, yawn.

3. I'd point out that apart from DVDs, most of his other examples aren't that widespread. Paperbacks with attached reading guides are uncommon and CD box sets rarely hit the charts.

4. The reading guides "revived literary deduction"? Shouldn’t that be “interpretation”? What are they supposed to be deducing?

5. I’ve heard about two dozen DVD commentaries and excerpts of easily triple that number but have never heard any filmmaker describe either “their own dazzling technique” or anything shot-by-shot. Of course most commentaries are complete wastes of time, one reason I don’t listen to them in full.

6. What is the possible connection between flatulence and being a film geek? For that matter why is being interested in art geeky? You can almost imagine: “Just a few years ago nothing would have seemed more recondite than reading Henry James’ collected prefaces, an idea that would interest only the most odorous book nerd.”

7. I miss Spy magazine.

8. Legally Blonde 2 and a Cody Banks film are easy targets.

9. Did VH1 actually show an NWA video? The channel has become such a celebrity shrine that I can’t watch it, something made only worse by “irony” that only points out how completely serious they are about celebs.

10. The end of trash culture would indeed be worth mourning and there are signs. I own a Herschell Gordon Lewis box set complete with commentaries, something unimaginable when I first had to book 16mm prints of his films and track down obscure VHS copies. Then again there are many more Jess Franco films on DVD than Ozu and Bresson combined which is definitely a disgrace. Don’t know that I have any point to that.

11. The Amadeus director’s cut came out in 2001, a decade after claimed in the piece.

12. I can’t imagine joining a reading group.

Fast Company

http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/MovieNews/Index/0,,83656,00.html



My review of Cronenberg's Fast Company.